I think he will finish with 15GS, winning not only RG but also AO at least once more. His last will be RG and he will desperately want it just to surpass Pete and become also no. 2 overall as he was most part of his career. He will definitely add some Masters on clay, maybe some Miami. He should get back to no. 1 spot but he will finish somewhere around 150 weeks.

They're so different players.
Sampras was pretty bad on clay compared to all non-clay specialist number ones like Djokovic, Courier, Agassi, etc.

Because of that, Sampras never won RG and he won so many Year-End Championships.

Now... Nadal is Clay-God, his best results are there, and he has a Sampras-career indoors (one M1000 event and nothing more).

I think we can't compare one to each other... Nadal would probably win more titles than him, but 70% (or more) of them would be on clay, so, the comparation is unfair IMO.

Rafa will probably get mor eslams than Pete, but I think he would never reach his Number-one record or his number of Year-End Championships.

Nadal could have more titles, slams and masters.

Pete would still have more non-clay titles, weeks at N° 1 and Year-End championships.

Comparation is unfair IMO.

Ah, appeal moderation? Wanna know what appeal moderation did to me?
LOOK AT ME!
LOOK AT ME, BOY! THESE ARE THE SCARS OF APPEAL MODERATION!
Take a good long stare, you know you want to.
You're not even man enough to look at my face.

I must say, I agree with Clay Death here, at least as long as intent goes (I would be more careful with the wording). This is a discussion for comparing Sampras and Nadal, bearing in mind the latter is still active and so speculating about his future results - not anything else. Those not really interested in comparing the two can achieve this almost anywhere else.

My favorite Nadulltard at it again with a good thread. Yes, I think Nadal can chase down Sampy. I have thought for a long time now they are about on the same level when it comes to greatness. I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal wins 14 slams exactly. They are opposites when it comes to game style. Sampras the best offensive player probably ever, Nadal the best defensive player ever. As far as mental toughness and killer instinct goes they are identical. But they both lack the versatility of Federer. They are essentially one-dimensional players. Sampras struggled on clay due to lack of defensive qualities while Nadal struggles on indoor due to lack of attacking qualities. Federer is one in a trillion. He his incredible both on offense and defense. The most complete player of all time. Sampy and Nadal is a notch below. Nadal still has 3 slams to go though. Could be difficult as he is starting to decline. But I certainly wouldn't put it beyond him.

I think he will finish with 15GS, winning not only RG but also AO at least once more. His last will be RG and he will desperately want it just to surpass Pete and become also no. 2 overall as he was most part of his career. He will definitely add some Masters on clay, maybe some Miami. He should get back to no. 1 spot but he will finish somewhere around 150 weeks.

I must say, I agree with Clay Death here, at least as long as intent goes (I would be more careful with the wording). This is a discussion for comparing Sampras and Nadal, bearing in mind the latter is still active and so speculating about his future results - not anything else. Those not really interested in comparing the two can achieve this almost anywhere else.

Ah, appeal moderation? Wanna know what appeal moderation did to me?
LOOK AT ME!
LOOK AT ME, BOY! THESE ARE THE SCARS OF APPEAL MODERATION!
Take a good long stare, you know you want to.
You're not even man enough to look at my face.

Cool story bro but winning a slam 10 times is unheard-of. You think Nadal will be winning slams when he's 29?

Sure.
Who's gonna stop it? Djokovic on clay at 28?
Murray?

Ah, appeal moderation? Wanna know what appeal moderation did to me?
LOOK AT ME!
LOOK AT ME, BOY! THESE ARE THE SCARS OF APPEAL MODERATION!
Take a good long stare, you know you want to.
You're not even man enough to look at my face.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Nadal got 3 more slams just at RG. When you think about it like that, Federer's record isn't actually that far away (Don't get me wrong, it's most likely not gonna happen). I reaaalllyy don't like Nadal but I gotta give him credit where credit is due. He's played against a stronger tennis group than Sampras imo, and he's adjusted to all types of courts much better than Sampras. If it weren't for the records at number 1, there wouldn't be any question. Also, considering the olympics is once every 4 years, I think a gold medal counts for a lot too. Imagine if he had 2, he would probably be the only one to conquer that feet no? (I'm totally guessing). The only question is how much time does he have left in him. His aggressive style has injured him a plethora of times and it only gets worse with each injury.

I believe he will get to 14 but hope he doesn't get more than that. Sampy getting surpassed by two players would be too much. I think it's safe to say he'd get at least 2 more RGs and maybe another slam (I hope it's not Wimbledon).

As for #1, you can't really tell. Who would have though Djoker would be #1 less than a year after Nadal won his USO. I certainly didn't. Having said that, his clay prowess allows him to gather a ridiculous amount of points on the surface year in, year out, so he can rely on that and some very smart scheduling to reach the total.

Nadal needs to get to 15 because Sampras' results outside slams will always be more impressive much because of his 5 YECs, strangely I can see Nadal get another Wimbledon and 3 RGs. However decline can come faster than you think for a player like Nadal, suddenly motivation and confidence goes down with the fall and you have a rolling stone which cant be stopped.

Nadal's great adaptability factor is what makes me think he can fight the aging process for some time atleast.

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.